From the Times this morning. 25,000 military personnel diagnosed as obese in the last 4 years. 32,000 failed the basic fitness tests in the past 3 years and interestingly not one high ranking officer even bothered taking the tests. The was a program recently on TV about the Royal Marines, which I was in many years ago and the first program was about new recruits and their first fitness test which I noted where being run by a Physical training instructor (PTI) who was obviously overweight with a gut that matched mine a few years ago. it occurred to me then that perhaps fitness was now taking a back seat as wars are fought more and more remotely but surely we still need foot soldiers and they need to be fit, just to carry all the equipment needed these days. The story also mentioned the food that the military personal now get. If my memory serves we pretty much ate what we wanted, probably was less junk food than today, but we were always running about so burned off all the excess calories. Even after training we were still required to keep up a quite rigid exercise regime. Times change I suppose and as usual a problem is noted but effectively ignored until it is perhaps to late.
Maybe my memory is failing me but i swear what is considered a healthy weight has changed, I used to be a few pounds away from being classed as underweight when i was younger and now the same weight and height is close to being overweight.
It's because of the BMI system. It's your weight in comparison to your height. My daughter is very tall for her age, yet she has quite a toned, athletic body because she does so much exercise, roller skating, swimming etc. Her school had the nerve to tell me that she was 'overweight'. My mrs. had a laughing fit when I told her; I went back to the school when they wanted a meeting (apparently they do BMI tests at 4, they try to meet with parents of overweight or obese children) and I asked them how they thought that a 5 year old with better abs than my 2nd dan in Judo brother, could be considered overweight. They excused themselves and appologised for it. They don't really care how the person 'looks', they only care about what their precious BMI system says; which we know isn't a proper insight into how healthy anybody is. It is a guideline only.
^^^ This is why educational psychologists never tell teachers the IQ score of a child. They misunderstand it as a fixed ability rather than a very rough and limited snapshot of current cognitive functioning.
So did we not use BMI in years gone by ? I only ask because since my late teens i have always been 6'2 and until middle age spread added a few pounds was always 12 and a half stone, from memory this used to place me within half a stone of being classed as underweight from what medical professionals told me at the time. Yet now i look at that same height vs weight and see it's within half a stone odd of being overweight, my suspicion is they have moved the goal posts.
The BMI is a deeply flawed way of assessing whether someone is over or under weight. It takes no account of build and no account of, the more relevant, body fat index. I suspect every thrower and weight-lifter at the the London Olympics would be rated as obese.
Indeed, it is about as reliable at judging if you are obese as a shop judging if you are old enough to buy alcohol by your height.
...all of which is why the WHO is looking at an alternative to BMI as a measure of health. According to their website: They're looking at including other measures in the definitions of over-, underweight and obese, including waist size and body shape. Going back to the OP, though, it's worrying that nobody in the Armed Forces seems to be concerned about the general fitness levels of the troops. Maybe it's just indicative of the way that battles are fought these days?
All these comments on BMI ETC are valid but the videos on the news of or troops in Afghanistan for example showed personnel who were definitely overweight. I suspect that these were mainly logistical personnel rather than frontline troops but that is no excuse. And the PTI corporal, I mentioned in the OP, was without a doubt carrying a beer gut. We actually discussed him on a Royal Marine forum that I occasionally visit and we were pretty much in agreement that he was not a great example of the instructors who were at the peak of physical fitness that we all knew during our time in the RM, or at least when we were in training.
I agree that front line infantry at least should be in peak physical fitness and should have the option to turn away obviously overweight individuals that wouldn't be strong enough or fit enough to travel the kinds of distances with the gear that an army would need. Other jobs that don't require the person to be as physical should have more lax procedures. But infantry should without a doubt be fit, with regulations that discriminate against the overweight and obese. I considered joining the army once, then remembered they don't admit anybody with flat feet.
TBH I've never paid much attention to the health, or lack thereof of the troops when watching a clip on the news, would be interested in a YouTube clip highlighting what you mean if you can dig one up.
The trick is not to diet for your country, but to make the other poor ******* diet for his... That said, i recall one of the uniformed services [can't remember if it was army or police], had to lower their entry requirements for fitness as not enough of the candidates met the required standard and adhering to the higher standard would've result in them being under manned...
At a guess, and relying on a naive generalisation, I would say times have just changed and there's just no necessity for peak fitness in majority of military operations. Technology has delivered on its promise and taken the hard labour out of things, so now we're all living the dream and enjoying the easy life - isn't this what we all want?
With all the talk of the troops supposedly coming home soon* how much of the problem is down to them just letting themselves go as they hope to be out of there soon especially among those who don't except to be deployed anywhere again in the future? * soon as defined by the ever changing will of some politicians.
Pretty sure it was the police, their entry standards are shocking for fitness. As for the forces, and speaking entirely from experience, the idea that our frontline troops are unfit is a farce. Fat isn't necessarily a limiting factor, I've known guys who carry weight and smoke and can still outrun me, yet due to BMI they're 'obese'. Yes, there are some examples in the military who do not meet the fitness requirements and manage to get away with it but the vast majority (even in the RN and RAF) meet the requirement. The point Kronos made about food strikes a chord though; it varies hugely dependent on service and location. Some establishments have a good choice making it easy to eat healthily, but you try eating well on a ship, having a gruelling sleep pattern and limited opportunity for fitness and remain in top shape.
Huh? Don't they have obligatory training? Mind you it's been.....19 years (god I'm old) since I've last had contact with the military. They sure had obligatory training...and the NCO's were rather fit, despite drinking like holes and smoking like a bushfire.
